Free-fall to singularity is BS (or - don't just trust 'authorities')

[Q-reeus]

Following is passage re-quotes (not always in original sequence) + comments on paddoboy's Opus Quotus in post #495 here, itself taken from here.

Won't it take forever for you to fall in? Won't it take forever for the black hole to even form?
Not in any useful sense. The time I experience before I hit the event horizon, and even until I hit the singularity—the "proper time" calculated by using Schwarzschild's metric on my worldline—is finite. The same goes for the collapsing star; if I somehow stood on the surface of the star as it became a black hole, I would experience the star's demise in a finite time.

Within the context of GR above is logically coherent up to the point of crossing EH but only for a thoroughly idealized and unrealistic hypothetical case. A so-called 'eternal Schwarzschild BH' existing in an otherwise totally empty and eternal universe. Ignoring the difficult case of a 'realistic' stellar-collapse BH and sticking with our 'eternal' BH, it has problems when plunked into our real, non-empty universe. Admitting in CMBR, possible future mergers etc. perturbs the unreal ideal case by varying and possibly drastic amounts. Since the final BH mass M now becomes an unknowable but increased parameter - ignoring next point. Further admitting the notion of Hawking radiation (i.e. bringing in QM) destroys validity of that 'neat' scenario entirely. More on all that below.

On my worldline as I fall into the black hole, it turns out that the Schwarzschild coordinate called t goes to infinity when I go through the event horizon. That doesn't correspond to anyone's proper time, though; it's just a coordinate called t.

Last part not true and in fact self-contradicted by later passage:

At large distances t does approach the proper time of someone who is at rest with respect to the black hole.

There's the admission. But note what's actually implied there is not t as a moment in time but ∂/∂t i.e. clock-rate. Now comes the obfuscation:

But there isn't any non-arbitrary sense in which you can call t at smaller r values "the proper time of a distant observer," since in general relativity there is no coordinate-independent way to say that two distant events are happening "at the same time." The proper time of any observer is only defined locally.

Strictly true but irrelevant and worse downright misleading. There has been a subtle switch-and-bait from talking (implied) relative clock-rates, to relative moments in time. The relative time *rates* vary unambiguously (in given scenario) as above quoted admission had to logically acknowledge. That's what matters re free-fall scenario. And such variance can be shown to be perfectly objective - 'real' - as the author acknowledges further below:

All this is not to imply that the black hole can't also be used for temporal tricks much like the "twin paradox" mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ. Suppose that I don't fall into the black hole—instead, I stop and wait at a constant r value just outside the event horizon, burning tremendous amounts of rocket fuel and somehow withstanding the huge gravitational force that would result. If I then return home, I'll have aged less than you. In this case, general relativity can say something about the difference in proper time experienced by the two of us, because our ages can be compared locally at the start and end of the journey.

Quite so - but hardly 'a temporal trick'! With a little careful thought applied, it's seen to thoroughly undermines the notion of finite proper time free-fall to the dreaded 'singularity'. Far from free-fall somehow cancelling above hovering observer scenario out, it exacerbates. Assuming free-fall equivalent to being 'from infinity', it's easily shown that relative to a momentarily co-located hovering observer (we assume close to the EH), the free-faller suffers an additional SR time dilation factor numerically equal to the purely GR frequency redshift factor √(g_00) suffered by the hoverer (as referenced to a distant coordinate observer - 'the rest of the universe'). Hence the net, in-principle objectively determinable, valid time dilation as clock-rate, of in-faller relative to coordinate observer ('rest of universe') is the product of those GR and SR factors i.e. √(g_00)^2 = g_00 . On top of that an additional, longitudinal Doppler-shift factor √(g_00) yields the in-faller's net optical redshifted output perceived by a coordinate observer. So although it's strictly true the net perceived redshift is, by just that additional factor 'illusory', it hardly matters as the objectively determinable time dilation factor (as clock-rate), g_00, has become zero at the EH crossing. None of this requires in-depth knowledge of GR, just logical application of the basics.

And here's the rub. It directly implies the rest of the universe has become infinitely old, just at that infaller's proper-time EH crossing. Not imo a sensible scenario. Somehow the infaller is due for a rude shock - at that point if not 'much' sooner. That the notion a further 'care-free' (sans spaghettification) infall to 'singularity' can make a shred of sense is laughable. Or - what's infinitely more infinite (EH to singularity) than what's already infinite (far outside to EH) as objectively determined by the rest of the universe? Utter nonsense imo. At this point of realization, some will try and rescue the case by invoking Hawking radiation which if it exists will radically alter the case from infaller's proper time pov. In fact, assuming the 'traditional' view that an infaller will see no Hawking radiation, the modified scenario logically has him/her riding a shrinking EH down to zero size and the 'singularity' per se is never encountered. And it occurs in typically huge but finite 'rest of universe' time which at least has some sanity to it.

In fact, inside the event horizon, t is actually a spatial direction, and the future corresponds instead to decreasing r. It's only outside the black hole that t even points in a direction of increasing time. In any case, this doesn't indicate that I take forever to fall in, since the proper time involved is actually finite.

Well things sure do get weird using Schwarzschild coordinates and assuming that unrealistic eternal BH. Please folks, don't drag in here even weirder exotica like 'firewalls' which concept imo just reeks of desperation and/or one-upmanship among ivory-tower theorists.

As some here are aware I reject GR anyway and consider the above issues as all consequences of working from a wrong starting premise. However I choose to work here from within the confines of GR just to point out that even from that premise the infall-to-singularity scenario has, err... holes in it other than just a black one!
Am aware one or two others here have made similar observations to above before, at least in part. This is an attempt to put things together somewhat coherently and inclusively. While tempted to plea for input from just those who 'know GR', that is expecting far too much from the free-for-all that is SF. So am bracing for a time and energy wasting flurry of 2-cents worth views worth exactly 2-cents less than that, and of course the traditional massive side-tracking. One last thing - if anyone wishes to 'pole the Profs' like in that other thread, fine, but do consider reaching a fresh bunch - one can wear out a welcome.

 

[Farsight]

Good stuff Q-reeus. Can I chuck in my two cents:

1) GR is just about the best-tested theory we've got. Don't reject it. Instead read the original material.

2) Some people will point to "the rest of the universe has become infinitely old" and claim that nothing can ever pass through the event horizon, and therefore black holes can't. form. IMHO this is incorrect, and the black hole forms like a hailstone. A water molecule can't pass through the surface of the hailstone, but it can be buried by other water molecules. So whilst it can't pass through the surface, the surface can pass through it.

3) I will drag in a 'firewalls'. There's one that isn't exotica, it's plain-vanilla simple physics. So simple it's scarey. When you fall into a black hole, you fall faster and faster and faster. Falling bodies don't slow down. They speed up. But the "coordinate" speed of light is getting lower and lower. Like Prof Moore said, it's zero at the event horizon, that's why the light doesn't get out. And at some point your falling speed would exceed the local speed of light. Only matter can't move faster than light, because as per pair production and the wave nature of matter, it's kind of "made of light". So something else has to happen to that matter wave. Like, it breaks. See Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. I have the full paper, but it's too big to attach here. The abstract is at http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v56a/56a0889.pdf :

"In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincaré, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters".

The bottom line is that when you fall into a black hole: FLASH! You never make it to the event horizon.

 

[Dr_Toad]

$.02 is more than that was worth. Especially since you have chosen to misunderstand Moore's comment again.

 

[Q-reeus]

Good stuff Q-reeus. Can I chuck in my two cents:

Nice of you to ask before diving straight in anyway!

1) GR is just about the best-tested theory we've got. Don't reject it. Instead read the original material.

Opinions vary. Just why they vary is what matters.

2) Some people will point to "the rest of the universe has become infinitely old" and claim that nothing can ever pass through the event horizon, and therefore black holes can't. form. IMHO this is incorrect, and the black hole forms like a hailstone. A water molecule can't pass through the surface of the hailstone, but it can be buried by other water molecules. So whilst it can't pass through the surface, the surface can pass through it.

The accretion scenario does have some logic to it but is still working from a wrong starting premise. Within that premise it's true one can in a sense get buried by later infalling matter and *maybe* actually 'make it to the (expanded) EH' in finite external time. But that's a coordinate perspective. And in no way avoids the issue of further infall to singularity in finite proper time ignoring the infinitely infinite external time implied.

3) I will drag in a 'firewalls'. There's one that isn't exotica, it's plain-vanilla simple physics. So simple it's scarey. When you fall into a black hole, you fall faster and faster and faster. Falling bodies don't slow down. They speed up. But the "coordinate" speed of light is getting lower and lower. Like Prof Moore said, it's zero at the event horizon, that's why the light doesn't get out. And at some point your falling speed would exceed the local speed of light. Only matter can't move faster than light, because as per pair production and the wave nature of matter, it's kind of "made of light". So something else has to happen to that matter wave. Like, it breaks.

Your evident confusion is in thinking the *proper* value of c is somehow reduced in a gravitational well. No.

See Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall. I have the full paper, but it's too big to attach here. The abstract is at http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v56a/56a0889.pdf :

"In the dynamic interpretation of relatively by Lorentz and Poincaré, Lorentz invariance results from real physical contractions of measuring rods and slower going clocks in absolute motion against an ether. As it was shown by Thirring, this different interpretation of special relativity can be extended to general relativity, replacing the non-Euclidean with a Euclidean geometry, but where rods are contracted and clocks slowed down. In this dynamic interpretation of the special, (and by implication of the general) theory of relativity, there is a balance of forces which might be destroyed near the Planck energy, reached in approaching the event horizon. In gravitational collapse, the event horizon appears first at the center of the collapsing body, thereafter moving radially outward. If the balance of forces holding together elementary particles is destroyed near the event horizon, all matter would be converted into zero rest mass particles which could explain the large energy release of gamma ray bursters".

Without reading the rest, I can smell the good Herr Winterberg is considered fringe by peers - assuming he is somehow within academia.

The bottom line is that when you fall into a black hole: FLASH! You never make it to the event horizon.

Hey - Farsight - we are in agreement! But just on the last sentence.

 

[paddoboy]

Following is passage re-quotes (not always in original sequence) + comments on paddoboy's Opus Quotus in post #495 here, itself taken from here.

As some here are aware I reject GR anyway and consider the above issues as all consequences of working from a wrong starting premise. if anyone wishes to 'pole the Profs' like in that other thread, fine, but do consider reaching a fresh bunch - one can wear out a welcome.

You reject GR?...Have you a scientific paper explaining why and its shortcomings?
Have you had it properly peer reviewed as per the scientific method?
Science forums such as this do not count.
With regards to the excellent info from all the professors concerned, they are the professionals, unlike you and me.
Why don't you contact a few?...

That just about sums up the state of the nation with regards to our many alternative hypothesis pushers, along with their inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.

And of course if you were fair dinkum, you would post this in the proper section [alternative section] but like others, you see the proper science threads as having that extra air of respectability about it.

Once again, despite all the delusional ranting, raving, hand-waving and marijhana, the mainstream position of the proper Interpretation of SR and GR remains in tact.
And as most of us do know, those disciplines of SR/GR, along with Evolution and Abiogenesis, are at high end of the echelon of degrees of certainty for scientific theories.

 

[paddoboy]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html


Obviously the answers not only refutes "Farsight Physics" [and any other made up physics on the run] on BH's and gravity, it also refutes his often made claim that time travel [although still sci/fi at this time] is Impossible.
No physical law or GR disallows time travel.
And many practical examples of how it could occur are available.

Also probably the world's foremost authority on BH's Kip Thorne, is someone who our GR deniers and alternative pushers need to take notice of.
Some good books I recommend to them that may help them in their difficult situations, and to see the light, and the reality as it really is.
BLACK HOLES and TIME WARPS:
Kip Thorne:
GRAVITY'S FATAL ATTRACTION:
Sir Martin Rees and Mitch Begalman:
GRAVITATION:
Misner, Thorne Wheeler:

 

[Q-reeus]

You reject GR?...Have you a scientific paper explaining why and its shortcomings?

I have published something, as at least two other members here are aware. Not a new theory just a critique of GR. It's a work in progress and needs some polishing before I would consider....

Have you had it properly peer reviewed as per the scientific method?

Science forums such as this do not count.

Who's saying they would? I did present the particular critique to a forum site devoted to airing alternate viewpoints. Was assured 'there are members here who really know GR'. Instead I was mostly assailed by folks like you who couldn't even understand my basic argument but just knew it had to be wrong. Then a few professional thread derailers guaranteed nothing useful came of it - in fact I asked to have it shut down in disgust at the disingenuous tactics employed. But this is a digression.

With regards to the excellent info from all the professors concerned, they are the professionals, unlike you and me.
Why don't you contact a few?...

I have, but maybe prematurely. And you are sidetracking this thread already.

Q-reeus said: ↑

That just about sums up the state of the nation with regards to our many alternative hypothesis pushers, along with their inflated egos and delusions of grandeur.

Excuse me? You are implying I have 'delusions of grandeur' by daring to point out problems with a prevalent scenario? I could respond in kind, but why lower myself.

And of course if you were fair dinkum, you would post this in the proper section [alternative section] but like others, you see the proper science threads as having that extra air of respectability about it.

You are of course free to express such opinions. But since I am not promoting some alternate theory here (despite your intimations otherwise), there is no grounds for implementing your urge to banish/censure. And can't help but noticing paddoboy - you have not ventured anything beyond pure hostile attitude (and I note who your allies are. A case of 'birds of a feather'). If so sure everything in #1 is wrong, how about offering a point-by-point rebuttal that actually tackles the specifics? Actually, I'm going to put you on the spot. Do just that and show everyone you're more than an empty head full of righteous indignation. Golden opportunity - don't pass this up!

Once again, despite all the delusional ranting, raving, hand-waving and marijhana, the mainstream position of the proper Interpretation of SR and GR remains in tact.
And as most of us do know, those disciplines of SR/GR, along with Evolution and Abiogenesis, are at high end of the echelon of degrees of certainty for scientific theories.

Bluster. And throwing in unrelated topics is silly. Give that objective point-by-point down-to-the-details critique - paddoboy. That's what will really count. Try and be gentle with me though.

 

[Q-reeus]

No physical law or GR disallows time travel.
And many practical examples of how it could occur are available.

Many physicists disagree with you, and among themselves. I consider the so-called Grandfather paradox to be as sturdy now as ever and actually strongly hints at a deep sickness at the root of GR. But either way, this piece is further seriously side-tracking the thread - already.

 

[paddoboy]

Bluster. And throwing in unrelated topics is silly. Give that objective point-by-point down-to-the-details critique - paddoboy. That's what will really count. Try and be gentle with me though.

Actually the bluster, and the usual excuses about why you don't air your thoughts through the proper channels and peer review is quite obvious and originates from you.......and as you openly admit, you do have a reputation.
And no, I am not able to give you a point by point rebuttal, and it would do no good anyway.
Firstly, something I have never hidden from, I'm no professional and am just a layman...One though that can generally sort the wheat from the chaff...Secondly, why would I even try, when you openly deride those that are expert in this discipline.

Many physicists disagree with you, and among themselves. I consider the so-called Grandfather paradox to be as sturdy now as ever and actually strongly hints at a deep sickness at the root of GR. But either way, this piece is further seriously side-tracking the thread - already.

Do they?? I have only said time travel is not against the laws of physics and GR.
I don't believe any physicist worth his salt, or even any potential "would be if he could be" delusional soul we so often see frequenting these forums, would disagree with that.

Just as an aside.....
Most of our chief Alternative hypothesis pushers, have also said they have validated ToE's.
Are you also in that club?

 

[paddoboy]

Once again, despite all the delusional ranting, raving, hand-waving and marijhana, the mainstream position of the proper Interpretation of SR and GR remains in tact.
And as most of us do know, those disciplines of SR/GR, along with Evolution and Abiogenesis, are at high end of the echelon of degrees of certainty for scientific theories.

Bluster. And throwing in unrelated topics is silly. Give that objective point-by-point down-to-the-details critique - paddoboy. That's what will really count. Try and be gentle with me though.

Not really.....Just trying to point out to you, that although scientific theories are never faitre copmlei proof, there are some in the top echelon like SR, GR Abiogenesis and Evolution, that are so well supported, they could be said to be near certain.

Which ones do you disagree with?
It may give us a inside as to what your agenda is.

 

[Farsight]

The accretion scenario does have some logic to it but is still working from a wrong starting premise. Within that premise it's true one can in a sense get buried by later infalling matter and *maybe* actually 'make it to the (expanded) EH' in finite external time. But that's a coordinate perspective. And in no way avoids the issue of further infall to singularity in finite proper time ignoring the infinitely infinite external time implied.

What further infall? A water molecule doesn't fall to the centre of a hailstone. In similar vein I don't see how an infalling observer ever falls through the event horizon. Make sure you read of The Formation and Growth of Black Holes by Kevin Brown. He refers to two interpretations of GR, one of which leads to the "frozen star" black hole concept. He doesn't favour this, but I think it's correct.

Your evident confusion is in thinking the *proper* value of c is somehow reduced in a gravitational well. No.

I'm not confused, I've read the original material. See the Baez article and note this:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

Without reading the rest, I can smell the good Herr Winterberg is considered fringe by peers - assuming he is somehow within academia.

He was in on the ground floor of GPS. And as best as I can tell, he's right about this. You saw what Moore said on the other thread. The "coordinate" speed of light does decrease with gravitational potential. The speed of a falling body doesn't decrease, it increases. Think it through, for yourself.

Hey - Farsight - we are in agreement! But just on the last sentence.

How come? There are some things out there that are very very massive, and very very dark.

PS: IMHO you're mistaken about strongly hints at a deep sickness at the root of GR. You need to read the original material. Because there's people saying relativity tells us x, but when you actually read what Einstein said, you realise he said exactly the opposite. NB: don't let yourself be distracted by paddoboy. He has a convictional belief in popscience myths, he will dismiss the references/quotes/evidence you offer in an attempt to dispel them, and he acts like some self-appointed witchfinder general. He is not honest. For example he will not admit that space doesn't fall down in a gravitational field, even though he now knows that it isn't true.

 

[paddoboy]

PS: you're mistaken about strongly hints at a deep sickness at the root of GR. You need to read the original material. Because there's people saying relativity tells us x, but when you actually read what Einstein said, you realise he said exactly the opposite.

Einstein as great as he was, and as its founder, has been dead for a while. That along with your misquotes, mis-Interpretations, simple misunderstandings, and new revelations since his time, means that GR and its basic understanding, has improved.
You are grasping at straws.

 

[Q-reeus]

Actually the bluster, and the usual excuses about why you don't air your thoughts through the proper channels and peer review is quite obvious and originates from you.......and as you openly admit, you do have a reputation.

Ho hum ad hominem.

And no, I am not able to give you a point by point rebuttal, and it would do no good anyway.

That's the admission that counts!

Firstly, something I have never hidden from, I'm no professional and am just a layman...One though that can generally sort the wheat from the chaff...

Being incapable of critiquing my arguments, you certainly have failed in that 'sorting' capacity here.

Secondly, why would I even try, when you openly deride those that are expert in this discipline.

Wrong. I have derided a scenario. You ought to learn to distinguish between attacking an idea and attacking those promoting it. Actually, I think you do know, but it suits your purpose to feign ignorance of the distinction. And quite ironic - given you are attacking me, yet incapable of attacking my presentation other than via pure rhetoric.

Do they?? I have only said time travel is not against the laws of physics and GR.
I don't believe any physicist worth his salt, or even any potential "would be if he could be" delusional soul we so often see frequenting these forums, would disagree with that.

So you say.

Just as an aside.....
Most of our chief Alternative hypothesis pushers, have also said they have validated ToE's.
Are you also in that club?

Disingenuous tactics designed to derail this thread. The answer though is NO!! Got that?!

 

[Q-reeus]

Not really.....Just trying to point out to you, that although scientific theories are never faitre copmlei proof, there are some in the top echelon like SR, GR Abiogenesis and Evolution, that are so well supported, they could be said to be near certain.

Which ones do you disagree with?
It may give us a inside as to what your agenda is.

This sub-forum, and this thread in particular, is supposed to be about PHYSICS!! Stop your disingenuous derailing campaign now. My strong advice - cease participation in this thread henceforth. I have you figured out - paddoboy. Your specialty is raging on in talk-fest sub-forums. Don't further waste yours and others time here.

 

[Q-reeus]

Farsight, just to get clear on your thinking - a few questions for you please:

1: A highly relativistic neutron (say a few 1000 Gev energy), and laser beam, are both aimed and simultaneously fired radially inward towards a BH EH. Assume the same starting elevation - a long way out from the EH. Which one takes the least time (coordinate or proper) to get arbitrarily close to EH?

2: Will one pass the other en-route?

3: Will a hovering observer close to the EH measure c there to be different than when that same observer again measures c much further out?

 

[paddoboy]

This sub-forum, and this thread in particular, is supposed to be about PHYSICS!! Stop your disingenuous derailing campaign now. My strong advice - cease participation in this thread henceforth. I have you figured out - paddoboy. Your specialty is raging on in talk-fest sub-forums. Don't further waste yours and others time here.

Pot, kettle, black.

And no, I'll continue posting if and when I see a need. That's my choice and not yours.
Once again, if you are fair dinkum, and have any validity at all in what you claim, you would not be afraid of proper peer review.
Instead, like our other alternative hypothesis friends, your only outlet are forums such as this.
That makes no difference to the proper peer reviewed mainstream opinions that have already run that same gauntlet, and come out smelling roses.
Now cease the bluster and whinging, and answer the question in post 10.
And if you have me figured out [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] you'll realise I will keep on questioning and bringing up the peer review and scientific methodology, which you alternative adherents so often insidiously deride and then rather stupidly claim conspiracy of, of one sort or another.

In the meantime, I'm sure mainstream cosmology and GR theorists will keep on keeping on, just as I will keep on, keeping on in spite of your bluster.
Hope that helps.

 

[paddoboy]

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html

 

[Q-reeus]

...Hope that helps.

Only to confirm my prediction in #1 - useless 0-cents worth input from the likes of you. Actually sub-useless in your case; would-be thread derailer. But I guess that's 'the air you breathe' - paddoboy. And regarding that 'profound statement' single link http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/home.html in your #17,
it again confirms to me what really impresses you - nice graphics - nice animations!

 

[Farsight]

1: A highly relativistic neutron (say a few 1000 Gev energy), and laser beam, are both aimed and simultaneously fired radially inward towards a BH EH. Assume the same starting elevation - a long way out from the EH. Which one takes the least time (coordinate or proper) to get arbitrarily close to EH?

The laser beam. It starts off travelling at our local speed of light, the neutron starts off slower.

2: Will one pass the other en-route?

No. That neutron can't go faster than the speed of light in vacuo, whatever it might be.

3: Will a hovering observer close to the EH measure c there to be different than when that same observer again measures c much further out?

No. We always measure c to be the same because of the wave nature of matter. We use the motion of light to define our second and our metre, then use them to measure the motion of light. It's a tautology, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4507. The thing to remember is that there's no literal time flowing in an optical clock. When the clock goes slower it's because light goes slower. You go slower too, because light and matter [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Important_things_to_stress]"are made of the same essence"[/url], so you don't notice that the light is going slower.

 

[PhysBang]

And here's the rub. It directly implies the rest of the universe has become infinitely old, just at that infaller's proper-time EH crossing. Not imo a sensible scenario.

This seems to be your one argument against GR here: you don't like the consequences of one interpretation of one scenario.

And the consequences you seem to be inferring are not truly the consequences of GR. The supposed implication that "the rest of the universe has become infinitely old" is a comment about distant objects and events and as such says nothing about those distance entities. Instead, statements about distant entities in GR are statements about the structure of causal influences from one event to another.